Audience Analysis

Preaching Means Picking Words – Part 2

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Yesterday we considered the challenge of picking the right words to convey the message when we preach.  We need to be precise rather than slack, but strive to communicate rather than to demonstrate our verbal or intellectual prowess.  Here’s another factor to throw into the mix:

Lofty language languishes. Is lofty language the same thing as pulpit pomposity?  Yes and no.  Pompous words are chosen to show off our intellect (or are used carelessly without intent to show off).  Lofty language may be used to show off our spirituality (or simply be used without thinking because we are used to it in our church circles, or because we mistake it for some sort of spiritual humility and genuinely motivated demonstration of sanctification).  The fact is that in almost every setting, listeners find lofty language and tone to be distant, unengaging and even off-putting.  While it may have been acceptable in a previous generation, it seems that in most places the tolerance for inauthentic communication forms has diminished drastically.  In the western cultures, at least, the majority of listeners now esteem authenticity and natural communication.  Having a pulpit voice or a pulpit vocabulary is not worth it, even if it once was (which is a very questionable “if”).

Lofty language languishes, it doesn’t stand up tall and demand that listeners engage with it and its message. Ok, that paragraph was a long one, so I’ll leave it there and add a part three to this series of posts.

Favorable, Yet Flawed Feedback

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I’ve mentioned before that it is not wise to evaluate your preaching by the polite pleasantries passed at the shaking of hands after preaching.  Now I’m reading an engaging and enjoyable book that I will review in due course, but it suggests several reasons for positive feedback in the post-sermon pleasantries that are worth taking into account:

1. Hopefully this doesn’t apply in your church, but many people are actually positive about poor preaching because they haven’t heard any better.

2. Certainly most Christians are relatively polite and pleasant.  Much post-sermon feedback is church culture speaking.

3. Christian listeners appreciate the character of their preachers, even if they are grossly lacking in competence.  That is to say, your preaching may be poor, but you care for their family, buried their grandfather, etc.

4. Most Christians are listening to sermons to have their own spiritual distinctives reinforced.  This writer calls this the reinforcement bells.  If a preacher rings the right bells, which they typically will since people choose the church that suits them, then they will feel “pats on the souls back.”

This is a helpful list.  I am looking forward to telling you more about the book, but I want to get further into it first.  (If you feel bad that I have not cited my source in this post, just ask and I will let you know – once I am back from my vacation/holiday! . . . or wait and the review will soon arrive!)

Thou Shalt Not Bore Through Preaching

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I can’t claim this as an inspired eleventh commandment.  But there have been times when I wished it were there in the text!  In reality I tend to hear myself preaching more than others now, so I need to be careful what I say here . . . but a lot of preaching is just really kind of, well, boring.

We could get into all sorts of reasons for that.  There are numerous ways to de-bore elements of preaching.  But I just want to raise the fundamental issue.  Let’s beware that we don’t bore.  Is it the content?  Sometimes.  Is it the delivery? Sometimes.  Is it the lack of “illustrations” (a common quick-fix diagnosis)?  Sometimes.  Is it the presence of predictable illustrations?  Sometimes.  Is it the attitude of the preacher?  Sometimes.  Is it the personality of the preacher?  Sometimes.  Is it the personal spiritual walk of  the preacher?  Sometimes.  Is it the reality about God?  Never.

There are many reasons why preachers commit the horrifying sin of boring listeners.  But lest I elongate this post and dilute the point unnecessarily, let’s just stop here with two comments.  Let us commit to never boring people with the Word of God.  Let us commit to genuinely responding to God convicting us on this issue (when He does), rather than simply sticking on a band-aid quick fix.

Arrogance and Humility: Whose Definition?

/ Peter Mead / 4 Comments

In my quick review of Piper’s Brothers We Are Not Professionals, I’m in chapter 22.  I presume I’m not the only one who resonates deeply with the issue raised in this chapter?  We live in a relativistic age where ‘arrogance’ is “the condemnation of choice in the political and religious arena for anyone who breaks the rules of relativism.”  (p160)  Any stand taken on biblical grounds will tend to lead to the charge of arrogance.

Piper cites G.K.Chesterton’s insightful description of that which is now fully fledged relativism.  The word ‘arrogance’ is used to hijack the term ‘conviction,’ and on the other side, ‘humility’ is used to hijack ‘uncertainty.’  In fact, the quote, from 1908, is so good, I will share it here:

“What we suffer from today is humility in the wrong place.  Modesty has moved from the organ of ambition.  Modesty has settled upon the organ of conviction; where it was never meant to be.  A man was meant to be doubtful about himself, but undoubting about the truth; this has been exactly reversed.  Nowadays the part of a man that a man does assert is exactly the part he ought not to asset – himself.  The part he doubts is exactly the part he ought not to doubt – the Divine Reason . . . . We are on the road to producing a race of man too mentally modest to believe in the multiplication table.” (Orthodoxy, 1908, quoted in Piper, 162).

We stand in a precarious position.  Any biblical stand we take will be shouted down as arrogant (and not just by the world, but by many in the church).  Detractors will not engage meaningfully, but rather quench discussion under a mask of modesty.  At the same time we must constantly ask God to convict us of any pride on our part, for true pride is insidious and always ready to creep in.  So what do we do?  Do we allow ourselves to be silenced by tactics carefully contrived to checkmate us?  Do we allow ourselves to be held back by a fear of inappropriate motivations on our part?

Pride is a problem, so is inappropriate uncertainty.  We need to stand with conviction, not allowing misapplied labels of arrogance to quench our courage.  We need to address uncertainty, not thwarted by the misuse of the label humility.

We will take some knocks, some blows, perhaps even some suffering.  But if we do not graciously, yet firmly stand for truth, then who will?

Not Every Passage is Easy

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

I suppose many of us preachers have a desire to make every passage understandable.  This is good and right on many levels.  Yet some passages, and some details in passages, are tough.  I was leading a Bible study on Isaiah 49-50 the other night . . . there was a tough detail.  Should I force my understanding on people?  What if my understanding of it rests on a broader background than some of those present can draw on?  I’m intrigued by Piper’s point in chapter 14 of Brothers We Are Not Professionals – we should show people why God inspired hard texts.

It is amazing that so much of Christianity rests on the shoulders of a “book,” and some parts of that “book” (technically 66 of them I suppose) are hard to understand.  Why did God do this?  Piper offers four reasons.  1. To stir in us a sense of desperation (utter dependence on God’s enablement).  2. To move us to supplication (prayer to God for help).  3. To prompt real cogitation (thinking hard about Biblical texts – which is no alternative to praying for help!)  4. To stimulate genuine education (the training of young people and adults to pray earnestly, read well and think hard.)

As preachers we must wrestle with hard texts and not simply skirt around them in our preaching, nor avoid them in our scheduling.  On the one hand it is up to us to help make the message of the text clear.  At the same time, we may do our listeners a disservice if we don’t point out when a passage is tough, and look for ways to let that be a motivation for study, rather than a hindrance.

The Danger of Disengagement

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Yesterday I enjoyed a couple of very encouraging, although too brief, conversations on preaching.  One thought that was bounced around was one I have addressed on here before – the fact that shortening attention spans is a myth.  People will listen as long as they are engaged.  For some preachers, that means an hour long sermon is entirely possible, while for others, twenty minutes is beyond what they can manage.

This issue of attention brings two thoughts from two very different “homiletics” voices to mind.  First, David Buttrick is among those who suggest that really people can only concentrate in short blocks of time, perhaps up to five minutes.  So the preacher should plan their message in order to recreate attention in these blocks.  I won’t go into detail on that here, just that simple thought may be helpful.

Second, Andy Stanley has helpfully pointed out the danger of disengagement.  What happens once people disengage from our message?  Stanley suggests that once someone disengages, they start to process the preached information in a different way: “this is irrelevant; church is irrelevant; God is irrelevant; the Bible is irrelevant.”  For Stanley the key is to keep listeners travelling with you on a journey.  (For a teaser of Andy’s book, here’s an interview on communication with Ed Stetzer – Andy Stanley interview)

How do we engage our listeners?  How do we keep them engaged?  Do we really recognize the danger when they disengage?

How Would Jesus Preach?

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Haslam’s book, Preach the Word, has a chapter entitled “Learning from Jesus.”  To some it is obvious that we should look to Jesus, who was, after all, the finest of preachers.  But I suppose some would overlook Jesus as a model of preaching since, well, we’re not Jesus.  In this chapter, the writer points out ten characteristics of Jesus’ teaching.  It’s not an exhaustive list, but it is a list worth pondering:

(1) Revelatory in Content – intimacy with the Father added an authority to his teaching, quite unlike the teaching of his contemporaries.

(2) Anointed by the Spirit – another key element in his authority was the role and freedom of the Spirit in the empowering of Jesus’ ministry.

(3) Biblical in its Source – Jesus knew, quoted, cited, explained and preached the Hebrew Bible.  While he was able to add to it in a way we cannot, he never contradicted it.

(4) Always Relevant – Jesus knew who he spoke to and he connected his teaching to their lives.

(5) Compassionate in its Motivation – Jesus really loved those he sought to draw to faith, and it showed in his communication.

I’ll give the other five tomorrow, we already have enough to ponder for one day!

Why Preaching is Ailing – Part Me

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

In the last two posts we’ve considered Greg Haslam’s list of eight reasons why preaching is ailing.  I’d like to add a couple more to the list, from my perspective.  Feel free to add your thoughts.

Some don’t know how to interpret the Bible. Some preachers have the best intentions, and even good presentation skills, but are lacking in the core ability to wrestle with a biblical text and grasp its intended meaning.  It’s easy to search a text for launch pads to spiritual thoughts, but it takes some prayerful skill to grasp the point as intended by the author.  Hermeneutics is not a luxury for the preacher, it’s foundational.

Some don’t understand the biblical bigger picture. We live in a day of ready access to biblical information, but it takes more than a big virtual library to make a preacher.  Quick access to info on a passage is one thing, holding together the big picture of the whole Bible is quite another.  We need more preachers who are really people of the Book as a whole.

Some don’t know what preaching is. It’s easy to think of preaching as a form of communication, a religious pattern to be repeated each week.  But what of the core elements of true preaching: the true meaning of the text, effectively communicated through the preacher’s words and life, with an emphasis on the applicational relevance to the particular listeners present, all in full reliance on the Spirit of God.  Miss out one of these elements and preaching ails fast.

Some don’t care about their listeners. They say that church too easily reflects its culture.  Well we live in cultures often bereft of others-centered motivation.  It’s too easy to build a ministry around a core motivation of “whatever is best for me.”  Preaching withers when listeners don’t matter.

There we go . . . four more things to watch for in our own ministries.  Tomorrow I want to turn the tone so we don’t get discouraged!  And if this list doesn’t discourage you, then be careful of pride!

Why Preaching is Ailing

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

In his opening chapter for the book he edited, Preach the Word, Greg Haslam lists eight reason why preaching is ailing.  Here are the first four with a summary of his point for your consideration:

1. Some are too busy. The busy schedule of hectic ministry and social life is simply keeping some people out of the study.

2. Some are too lazy. Stott is quoted as giving a minimum preparation time of one hour for every five minutes of message.  For those that aren’t willing to give at least that time, their preaching will suffer.

3. Some are too ambitious. By this he refers to climbing an ecclesiastical ladder of success (one which demands much in the way of networking, but at the expense of direct preparation).  This ladder, it may turn out, leans against the wrong wall, because of how God defines success.

4. Some are too nervous. These are too afraid to speak the truth because they might be disliked or alienated by their congregation (or, I might add, by some key individuals in the congregation).

Schedule check time.  Heart check time.  Is your preaching ailing because of factors such as these?  Tomorrow, four more.

Make Two Key Times Count

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

I just saw a chart showing that there are two key times in any presentation.  I’ll describe the chart for you.  On the vertical axis, from 0 to 100%, is the scale of attention and retention.  On the horizontal axis, it reads “beginning … middle … end.”  The chart consists of a U-shaped curve.  Attention/retention are highest at the beginning and the end, but dip significantly in the middle.

This poses some concern for me as a preacher.  If this is true, then we need to consider whether we’ve packed the best meat in the middle of the sermon.  Surely we wouldn’t want to give a “meat sandwich” of a sermon if our listeners miss significant amounts of good meat, but take in all the white bread at the start and finish?  Perhaps we need to give more attention to the bread of the sandwich.  Too many sermons are fine steak in the middle of dry cheap white sliced bread.  We need to give more time to preparing our intros and conclusions (so the bread is a higher quality homebaked wholemeal something or other).

Ok, enough of the sandwich analogy, I’m starting to get distracted by my own hunger.  When we preach, let’s think carefully about how to maximize the value of our introduction – not just grabbing attention and building rapport, but also raising need for what is to follow and moving powerfully into the message in order to protect against an excessive dip in attention and focus.

Let’s think carefully about how to make the most of our conclusion – not just fizzling to a faded flop of a finish, but finishing strong, driving home the main idea, encouraging application of it and stopping with purpose.

If attention and retention are highest at the beginning and end of a message, let’s make these two key times count.

(If you want to see the chart and the suggestions given in that post, just click here.)